Evidence for God from Science

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:Sure. But there are branches off the RLN into the heart etc, like I quoted from Grays, that apparently has some functionality in that branch...or else why would it branch off from there? You have to show that that all functionality will be retained with your scenario. Even the loss of a single function will negate your argument.

OK, so branch those off at the appropriate level, like I said. The Vagus nerve travels right past the heart.

August wrote:You are kidding, right?

Ok, answer me this, do you believe that that constitutes proof for the statement "You can't prove a negative"?

August wrote:So then it is necessary for those branches to branch off there, because it seems to hold some function?

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:You are kidding, right?

Ok, answer me this, do you believe that that constitutes proof for the statement "You can't prove a negative"?

You are arguing semantics. If you think that it's possible to prove a negative, then go ahead: prove there's no Father Christmas.

August wrote:
Semantics? I've been asking you for a formal proof for a few posts now, and you cannot come up with it. You made that statement, now prove it.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:So then it is necessary for those branches to branch off there, because it seems to hold some function?

No, they can branch straight off the Vagus. That is the point. You actually don't know anything about nerves, do you?

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:
Semantics? I've been asking you for a formal proof for a few posts now, and you cannot come up with it. You made that statement, now prove it.

I have shown you it is a logical fallacy. If you can't understand what a fallacy is, that's not my problem.

August wrote:Going to start with the insults now? You don't know anything about me, so if you want to do that, then go ahead.

I get what you are saying, you just have not shown that it is necessarily better.

August wrote:
Sigh.

If you cannot prove it, then say so. What you showed had nothing to do with your statement, it was a muddled combination of the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle.

But you don't seem to able or willing to answer a straight question. Do you believe you have proven that "You can't prove a negative."

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:
Sigh.

If you cannot prove it, then say so. What you showed had nothing to do with your statement, it was a muddled combination of the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle.

But you don't seem to able or willing to answer a straight question. Do you believe you have proven that "You can't prove a negative."

Double sigh.

If you can prove a negative, then kindly prove the statement "you can't prove a negative", wrong.

August wrote:You made that statement, now prove it. Nice try, but you are not going to shift the burden of proof to me here.

As soon as you provide positive proof for your statement, I will be happy to oblige.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:You made that statement, now prove it. Nice try, but you are not going to shift the burden of proof to me here.

As soon as you provide positive proof for your statement, I will be happy to oblige.

Why are we wasting time re-inventing the wheel? The burden of proof is obviously on you. because you are proposing a well-established logical fallacy - the argument from ignorance.

August wrote:This has nothing to do with the argument from ignorance. You just can't prove what you asserting.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:This has nothing to do with the argument from ignorance. You just can't prove what you asserting.

OK, prove that it isn't the argument from ignorance. I say that it is, prove me wrong.

August wrote:So are you saying that you have proven: "You can't prove a negative"